It’s Not All About You Though, Is It?

Atrios has suggested that a lot of the right-wing global warming stupidity which surfaces every time it snows–gasp! In WINTER!–is really just about pissing off liberals; they know better, Atrios claims, they just want to poke a stick at the icky DFH.

I dunno. I do think that’s where a lot of Sarah Palin’s “how’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya” rhetoric comes from. It’s not about making a point or being a leader or having ideas, it’s about directing anger at a politically expedient target. People are besieged on a variety of economic fronts, their kids are having to deal with crap they never had to worry about at that age, our major systems and institutions have all failed, yada yada. Easy to point at the DFH and say it’s all their fault.

But on the climate change thing, I really think ends up being about narcissism. Hey, says Sean Hannity, it’s cold in MY yard so therefore it must mean Al Gore is FAT! Ha ha! Seriously, these folks have such tunnel vision, they can’t think beyond their little circle of sycophants, let alone stop to consider why it’s called global climate change.

You know, never mind that Vancouver is experiencing record warm temperatures and lack of snow, just in time for the Olympic Winter Games.

Or that record heat and drought in Australia is causing massive crop loss–this after last January’s heat wave which claimed 37 lives. Meanwhile, a heatwave in Brazil has killed 32 people, and over in South Africa, folks are also suffering under oppressive, record heat.

Of course, it’s summer in most of those places (well, not Vancouver …) which is why we DFH’s always say: there’s a difference between weather and climate. And all of these bizarre weather patterns, from wild and wooly winter in Washington, D.C., to searing drought in the Southern Hemisphere, confirm that things are changing.

The World Meteorological Organization reported at the end of 2009:

This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.

But to Hannity, Inhofe, Beck and the rest, only what happens in North America matters.

That’s just so typical of conservatives, isn’t it? Conservative ideology is all about IGMY-ism (I Got Mine, Y’all) — it denies everyone else a shot at healthcare, jobs, clean air, clean water, a decent education for their kids. It’s a drawbridge mentality: as long as they and theirs are OK, forget about letting anyone else into the party.

So I think Atrios is being too generous in regard to conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh. It’s not about pissing off liberals, it’s about a “world” view that can’t see past its own nose.


As usual, I write something, schedule it to post the next morning, shut down the computer, then watch The Daily Show say what I was thinking a thousand times better than I ever could. For your viewing pleasure:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis


Filed under climate change, conservatives

44 responses to “It’s Not All About You Though, Is It?

  1. >I'm undecided on man-made global warming because there is a plethora of conflicting data being reported.I would offer, however, that to take to task those who use current temperatures to bolster their point and then do that very same thing in this piece seems a bit of a stretch.For instance, the temperature link in Canada for the Olympics says El Nino is causing it. I have yet to hear a consensus that El Nino is caused by "global climate change". Hence my problem with jumping on either of the bandwagons of divide (which, in all likelihood, is the main reason for the "debate"). Just one more thing to keep the ignorant masses fighting amongst ourselves.I will also offer that anytime there is this much money to be made in another governmental taxing ponzi scheme, we better make damn sure before we jump on the bandwagon of choice that supports the American citizen… not more of the Corporate greed and fat catting we have been guilty of supporting for far too long..I think it is evident that money is a huge reason for the meme from the likes of Al Gore (who, imo, is as untrustworthy as any reTHUGlican alive). Just look who his choice of VP was (he apparently isn't the brightest candle in the box, either).But I have ZERO allegiance to a party. Any party.The sooner we dump that bogus, divide inducing fake party crap, the better.

  2. >This is why only people holding used passports should be allowed to vote. If you have no curiosity about other countries/cultures and no experience with other successful ideas or ways of living, you have no imagination and should be denied the vote. And you should have your guns taken away by force too 🙂 Including that little Kel-tec hold-out you've got tucked away. This is from the podium of…37°52'18s N / 122°16'18s W

  3. > .. there is a plethora of conflicting data being reported….Actually, no. The vast majority of data about GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE shows an alarming and possibly irreversable warming trend over the past 100 years — mirroring the industrial revolution. You'd be an idiot not to connect the two.Weather patterns like El Nino are a component of this. They are a warming of ocean currents in the Pacific. Climate scientists are still debating exactly how global warming and El Nino/La Nina are connected but it seems they are. From the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology:"The changes in temperature of the sea surface in the tropical Pacific in their anthropogenic greenhouse simulation are very similar to those actually observed during real El Niño events: the east Pacific warms by approximately 3ºC by the year 2100 (Figure 8), much more strongly than the west Pacific, whose temperature only increases by 1ºC. This suggests that El Niño-like events will occur much more frequently in the future if the global output of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is not drastically reduced. An increase in the amount of inter-annual variability is also seen with the long-term warming trend in the east Pacific; this is mainly expressed in the cold events (La Niñas) becoming stronger, as can clearly be seen in Figure 8. Preliminary results also indicate that changes in the ocean circulation can cause changes in the statistics of inter-annual variability."As for people getting rich off of global warming, that's absolutely hilarious. The only people getting rich are folks like ExxonMobil, who are reaping in billions of dollars in record profits for a corporation at any time in the world's history–the millions they funnel to global warming denying groups is miniscule by comparison.

  4. >Mrs Beale believes in her man, Al Gore, I see. She believes that these corrupt assholes have no monetary gain in plan. Does she believe that they are all stalwart protectors of America and truly are protecting us from doom?Gullibility and allegiance to this bogus two party system is at least 50% of our problem. To think that the proposed carbon taxes won't make these people rich, is the idiotic stance. Look at Al's investments and it is truly pretty clear that he has a monetary objective.IPCC is falling apart due to the lies, Mrs Beale. This is fact.So, a thinking person (as I am) would be forced to step back and ask the obvious question: why lie and hide the truth about scientific data? Why fudge numbers to make a point, if it is as real as you claim?Oh, yeah. Al Gore (and his "side's" cronies) said so.Egad.All I am saying is that this is NOT as slam dunk as you want your readers to think it is.Paint me into the right-wing crazy "side" if you like (for that is precisely what THEY want you to do). But until I get straight shit from these folks, I am not gullible enough to fall for the meme.

  5. >Monetary gain? Come on, like there isn't monetary gain at work on the denier's side? Give me a break. Why is it always Al Gore is getting rich off of this (and if you've been following green stocks you will know that's absurd) but ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, and all of their affiliated industries (Koch Industires, etc.) are just poor little not for profits scraping to put a buck togetherPlease. They are giant multinational corporations trying desperately to hold onto the status quo that reaps in $45 billion PROFIT (that's net, for those who like to pretend otherwise) a QUARTER.Profit my ass.

  6. >BuelahBoy is evidently just another highschool dropout who think he knows more about climate science that hundreds of Nobel laureates. From Wiki… "The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2][3][4][5] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[14] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[15] the American Meteorological Society,[16] the International Union for Quaternary Research,[17] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[18][19] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.However, consensus is not unanimous, for example: at least one of the scientists asked to review and comment on the IPCC papers does not agree that humans are responsible for climate change [20][21]." OMG….one scientist actually agrees with BuelahBoy…..likely the same one who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old.

  7. >List of Nobel laureates that support our position :Selected Prominent Signatories to the World Scientists' Call for Action at the Kyoto Climate SummitNOBEL LAUREATES* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986

  8. >list continued….* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

  9. Jim

    >Crickets – I can't help but notice that non of the NOBEL LAUREATES listed are in meteorlogical or other weather related fields of study. Who cares what a Chemistry or physiology/medicine award winner thinks about global warming? That would be like asking the VP what his thoughts on it are – oh wait nevermind.When global warming people cite both the lack of snow last year and the abundance of snow this year as symptoms of man made global warming then you have to call bullshit.

  10. >So Jim thinks he knows more about climate science than "all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries." You see Jim…It's not just Fat Al, or the Nobel laureates, or all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries…. It is a consensus.Do you know the definition of the word consensus.?

  11. >SoBe, I see the indignant desert birds have escaped again … the climate change deniers and boiled frogs who think they, singlehandedly, possess more knowledge and wisdom than the world's scientists combined. There are times when I wish our sun would go supernova. Given a choice between a slow agonizing death by stupidity v. a quick and merciful end, I would rather go out in a sudden blaze of glory … leaving behind a light in our Galaxy that says: "Behold, see what happened to the Dumb Dude Birds of Earth! Let that be a lesson to all intelligent life in the Universe."

  12. Jim

    >Dusty – consensus means "a majority of opinion." Does that mean the consensus of scientists is correct? Has there ever been a consensus among scientists that was wrong?

  13. >1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642Wonder if we'll have to wait 350 years for the climate change deniers to apologize?

  14. Jim

    >Interesting reference SB. As you know, the consensus among the scientists back then was that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Galileo spoke out against this consensus and was excommunicated for his unbelief… Now which side does this really reflect?

  15. nm

    >Akshully, Jim, once Copernicus published his findings suggesting a non-heliocentric world they were widely accepted by the scientists of the day. Galileo was one of those scientists, and his work followed up on that of Copernicus. It was his prominence as a teacher of new ideas (not anything unusual in what he was doing) that led to his prosecution.And I think that a lot of people genuinely misunderstand the entire concept of global warming, because "global warming" is a good sound bite but a lousy descriptor. If we called it "global increase of energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere" it would be clearer how it was connected to an increase in storms, shift in seasonality of tornadoes and hurricanes, higher and lower rainfall totals and temperatures at specific times of year in specific places, etc. But even then, a lot of people don't remember anything from their Earth Sciences classes anyway, and can't tell how it all fits together.

  16. >A lot of "scientists" who attempt to debunk the consesus of thousands of climatologists, meteoroligists, physicists, etc., that AGW is a fact of life rely on funding from the energy sector. James Inhofe of OK is possibly the dumbest son-of-a-bitch in congress when it comes to an understanding of how science actually functions.

  17. >Jim, Think about who the "consensus" in my Galileo analogy represented. Not "scientists" but the established POWER of the day.Use your head, please. Cripes.

  18. Jim

    >nm – the way you describe it, "global warming" is going to occur regardless of what humans do simply based on the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.

  19. >Jim,Based on the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, global warming is indeed inevittable when 6 billion people burn fossil fuels at the rate we have been doing it.You left out the third part of the equation.

  20. Jim

    >The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.So looking at this what do you think is a larger driving force for the earth's temperature? Lets say the sun's energy production fluctuated .01% – That would be 385 exajoules. That is almost equal to the amount of power used in the world for one year. I would look to the sun to explain any changes in our climate.

  21. Jim

    >wow, I did not read far enough into that article:The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.

  22. >Jim:Comments like the last two you made are about as scholarly as the majority of those made by the fossil fuel funded AGW denialist "research" organizations.

  23. >There are a few scientist that are not part of the consensus…Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner for the discovery of PCR, is a typical one ….He is a global warming denier and is also know for being a HIV denier….which puts him in the company of fuckwits like Thabo Mbeki. from Wiki… "Despite its lack of scientific acceptance, AIDS denialism has had significant political effects, especially in South Africa under the presidency of Thabo Mbeki. Scientists and physicians have raised alarm at the human cost of AIDS denialism, which discourages HIV-positive people from using proven treatments.[7][8][9][3][10][5] Public health researchers in South Africa and at Harvard University have independently investigated the effect of AIDS denialism. Their estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, along with 171,000 other HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections, to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism.[11][12] So…you know…kook.

  24. >democommie said… "Comments like the last two you made are about as scholarly as the majority of those made by the fossil fuel funded AGW denialist "research" organizations." Just saw this over at Think Progress… "….In 2008, George Bush’s Fish and Wildlife Service director Dale Hall testified that there was no significant scientific uncertainty in the endangerment posed by global warming to polar bears, based on numerous scientific studies. In contrast, when Palin petitioned to overturn the endangerment finding, she cited a paper funded by Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Koch Industries." Heh… Exxon Mobil….just as you said.

  25. >uh, FYI Jim they don't GIVE a Nobel prize for meteorology.Southern Beale:That was Pope John Paul who apologized to Galileo. Now we have a pope who even after that continued to support the medieval church's position vs. Galileo.So don't assume that that apology 350 years later is even really an apology, if you have a sufficiently conservative pope.

  26. >Jim:As far as the reality of climate change, all I have to say is this: follow the money.The Canadian shipping company OMNITrax has recently been joined by other shipping companies in improving rail connections to and port facilities in Churchill, Manitoba and other towns along Hudson's bay in anticipation of the melting of the polar ice cap far enough to open a shipping route between Asia and eastern North America. The 'northwest passage,' the fruitless search for which cost the lives of many a mariner during the age of exploration, has been sealed shut by ice for nearly 16,000 years.Meanwhile ski resorts are investing in artificial snow making equipment or contemplating closing down as ski seasons become shortened.ADM and Monsanto have been spending money to research what kind of fertilizers would be needed to grow various crops in soils that are farther north than where the optimal growing range is now.If global warming is such a hoax, why are companies whose business it is to figure out where to put their research and investment dollars not only assuming it will happen but planning for it to happen? Do you know more than those CEO's, Jim?

  27. >For those of you who really wish to understand our fair planet, I submit this simple syllabus.Jim, you're right. The energy of the sun that is absorbed by our planet far exceeds our humble transportation and appliance needs. That's the reason that scientists first pursued solar technology. It makes good economic sense. The reality of solar electricity has exceeded all expectations and is already economically viable. But what is more important to our discussion is what happens to all that energy when it is absorbed by the earth. As it turns out, the most significant reaction in the earth's energy budget is the absorption of sunlight by the ocean. Scientists can tell you how much energy is absorbed or reflected in each square meter of ocean. What is the temperature change in that portion of water? How much heat and light energy is reflected back into space? By now, you understand that it has more to do with the science of oceanography than anything else. let me lead with this statement.The oceans absorb the sun's heat, transferring it to the atmosphere and distributing it around the world via the ever-moving ocean currents. This drives global weather patterns and acts as a heater in the winter and an air conditioner in the summer.It also explains why the gulfstream brings beautiful, warm weather to England and Scotland. I have spoken many times about Roger Revelle. It was actually Walter Munk, also of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, who pioneered reasearch and physical measurements of ocean circulation.We should all be able to agree that the mean air temperature of earth has peaked in the early 21st century.According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), last year was tied for the second warmest year on record after 2005, the warmest year on record. If just looking at the southern hemisphere, however, 2009 proved the warmest yet recorded since record-taking began in 1880. Overall 2009 tied a total of five other years—four from the 2000s—for the second warmest on record. But, researchers say what is most important was that the past decade, from January 1st 2000 to December 31st 2009, proved the warmest on record.We also know that the northern sea route, so carefully navigated by Soviet nuclear icebreakers in the 1960s, will soon be a shipping and touristing super-highway.Fall air temperatures 9°F (5°C) above normal, the second lowest-ever extent of summer sea ice, and the melting of surface ice in Greenland are signs of continued warming in the Arctic, according to the Arctic Report Card, an annual review of Arctic conditions by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its partners. "Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions," said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and a lead author of the report. "It's a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways."Lastly, the El Nino cycle is nothing new and was named by Peruvian fisherman after the Christ child. I experienced the 1997-1998 El Nino in all of its glory. It was far more dramatic than this year's event. Four of us, young and old waded out to Birdrock in December. It kept raining until June.There are written records of El Niño’s effects in Peru at least as far back as 1525, and researchers have found geologic evidence of El Niños in Peruvian coastal communities from at least 13,000 years ago.

  28. >We also know that the northern sea route, so carefully navigated by Soviet nuclear icebreakers in the 1960s, will soon be a shipping and touristing super-highway.I think this is the point, FJ. Talk about the "profit motive" — all of the natural resources that have been uncovered by melting polar ice which is now being snapped up by the U.S. and Russia and Canada … it's tremendous. That is the profit motive to deny global warming, not some cheesy little green energy fund Al Gore invested in that can't make a nickel.

  29. >Anthropogenic Global Warming, like most matters of fact, has a Liberal Bias.

  30. >Hence why Liberals feel the need to lie to further all their causes.I get it!Global Warming is a religion, not an ideology.

  31. >Literally, like talking to a brick wall.

  32. Jim

    >I don't deny that the earth has been warmer lately than in the past. What I do not believe is that it is due to human activity. Natural cycles of the Earth are way beyond our control. Should people waste energy? No, but if they are paying for it they should be free to do as they please. Should we go so far as to tax some forms of energy production as a penalty for being carbon based? No – that will only hurt the people least likely to be able to afford it.Glaciers have formed and melted throughout the history of the Earth. Hell NY was covered in ice just 10,000 years ago or so – should we aim for that as the "ideal" climate? "Greenland" did not get its name for being covered in ice. People, the world is not static and it is not suprising that the temperature goes up and down over the years. Just look back to the 1970's when the "consensus" was a coming Ice Age for the world.

  33. >It's fun to think about. The great ice sheet that covered New York and Pennsylvania. The grinding glaciers that formed the Finger Lakes. The great morains of the Sierra Nevada. Of course, I would never try to prove a vast theory in a comment thread. I just like science, particularly ocean sciences.

  34. >Jim said "Just look back to the 1970's when the "consensus" was a coming Ice Age for the world." Just another lie….there was never a consensus…actually just the opposite…behold.. " There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.So begins an excellent review article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) by Thomas Peterson, William Connolley, and John Fleck. The BAMS piece examines the scientific origins of the myth, the popular media of the 1970s who got the story slightly wrong, the deniers/delayers who perpetuate the myth today, and, most importantly, what real scientists actually said in real peer-reviewed journals at the time. Their literature survey, the most comprehensive ever done on the subject, found:The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations." OK little Jimmy …whats your next lie.?

  35. Jim

    >Mt bad Dusty – I was going on the Time article and other magazines that predicted global cooling in the 1970s. You are right that there was not a consensus on the topic.

  36. >Jim.. I apologize for my condescending tone…It seems that not every verifiably false statement is a lie.

  37. >RE: global cooling in the 70s, I'm coming late to this conversation but I remember the big fear campaign being about "nuclear winter" — related to the arms race, everyone was afraid of widescale thermonuclear war which would result in "nuclear winter" — perhaps that is what Jim is referring to.

  38. >Funny thing is, I was reading your article wondering if you had seen Jon Stewart. Then I got to the update and had a good laugh because it was like that part of the show when they were trying to come up with names for the snowstorm.. Well, maybe you made the connection, too.

  39. >What I do not believe is that it is due to human activity.Why not, Jim" How is it possible that 6 million people can live on the planet and NOT have an impact? That's just mind-boggling to me.Most of those "natural" changes in climate you refer to didn't happen just cuz. They happened for a reason. Asteroids hit the earth, the result is massive amounts of crap in the atmosphere, and the result is climate change which brought about the extinction of dinosaurs. Volcanoes explode–Krakatoa, Vesuvius, etc., and it spews gases and particles high into the atmosphere tha changes the climate for YEARS. So how is burning fossil fuels on a massive scale, year after year, day in and day out, all around the world, for 100 years any different? One is intentional and caused by man, and one was a natural phenomenon. We can't do anything about asteroids or volcanic eruptions but we can very easily stop burning fossil fuels. Except the richest corporation on the globe doesn't want us to.

  40. >I tend to be anti denier so more on the side of global warming. I have had too many discussions with relatives to get into this anymore, but in my life time there has been significant temperature increases. I don't need anyone to explain this away, either. I know this year the winter has had little snow for places that usually get a lot of it. Here is a very good post on this with lots of links and a good point at the end and you have to see the logic in this argument..

  41. >Jim:Greenland got its name because it was anything but green.Erik the Red, having been exiled from Iceland for murder, founded a colony on a sheltered region on the tip of the island. His reasoning was that he figured if the name was pleasant sounding more settlers would desire to come. So they should have hired a lawyer and sued him for misleading advertising. Who knew that started centuries before they sold homes near Love Canal?"much people will go thither if the land has a pleasant name." The name is not altogether unsuitable, as the place chosen by Eric for the settlement which he named Greenland is the pleasantest spot in the country, a smooth grassy plain at the head of Igaliko fiord, near the modern Julianshaab. The name was afterwards inappropriately extended to the whole ice-clad country.

  42. >Umm .. and obviously I meant 6 BILLION people on the planet, not million.And just ignore all the other typos in that comment … sheesh …:-)

  43. >Personally, I don't give a hoot if global warming is real or the imaginary falling sky of Henny Penny.The recommendations are to do constructive things like develop alternative "clean" energies, practice renewable forestry and generally reduce our carvbon footprint.Seems to me we could simply take each recommendation on its merits and decide what would be beneficial to the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.Recycling reduces the growth of landfills leaving my grandchildren more land space – I can live with that.Alternative energies that reduce or eliminate emissions of poisonous fumes? Another no-brainer.So what's the real bitch here? That you will be somehow inconvenienced or that you aren't mature enough to support a beneficial measure because it comes from "the other side?"You can certainly agree to participate in conservation while stating your views (gee, like I just did).Ironic isn't it that its called conservation but it is only supported by liberals.Names, names, everywhere a name, cluttering up the debates and creating mindless games…